MADAN LAL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S. 439 Crimial P.C. in FIR No. 25/92. The petitioner has been apprehended in a case under S. 498A and 304B Penal Code started on a report lodged by one Ganpat Ram on 2-2-1992. The petitioner's son was married to the complainant's daughter Asha on 17.10.1991. The allegation of the prosecution is that complainant spent a considerable huge amount in the marriage but the demand for dowry went on increasing and it could not be fulfilled by the complainant. The father-in-law namely, the petitioner Madan Lal Mehta, mother-in-law husband Anil Mehta and his elder brother often treated his daughter Asha with cruelty. According to the complainant she has been murdered on 2.2.1992 by the aforesaid persons. On receipt of this report a case was registered and postmortem of Asha was conducted. In the opinion of the Medical Board the mode of death was asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging. Injuries were also found on her person including an haematoma on the scull which too was antimortem in nature. During the investigation of the case the petitioner had been arrested. He moved an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was rejected on 29.2.92; now this application for bail.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the social as well as economic status of the petitioner is far more higher than that of the complainant who is only a Panwala. The petitioner is a whole-sale dealer in medicines and is having a noted Firm - Mehta and Company in Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. He, besides being an income-tax paper, owns his own car, scooter etc. and owns a huge house in Rajapark, Jaipur. His contention is that Anil was married to Asha not for lost of money or getting dowry but seeing a good girl. she was brought as his daughter-in-law. His submission is that one Ramesh Bhatiya who is brother-in-law (Jeeja) of the deceased Asha is running a school in the name of Asha Niketan Public School in Chomu and he used to visit Asha often after her marriage. He wanted to accompany Asha with him on 22.1.92 which was seriously objected to by the petitioner's wife and the matter was reported to the girl's father about Ramesh's visiting Asha at latter's place to which Ganpat Ram said, he had not sent Ramesh who continued visiting Asha even till 31.1.92, i.e., the unfortunate day of incident. Learned counsel submits that the entire case is false, frivolous and fabricated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application.